16:01:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
16:02:04 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/04/01-json-ld-irc
16:02:04 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:02:05 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), bigbluehat
16:02:06 <wes-smith> present+
16:02:07 <anatoly-scherbakov> present+
16:02:14 <bigbluehat> meeting: JSON-LD WG
16:02:14 <bigbluehat> chair: bigbluehat
16:02:14 <bigbluehat> present+
16:02:36 <bigbluehat> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/de31b974-ca9c-4325-bcea-60b91a1b78d9/20260401T120000/
16:02:37 <agendabot> clear agenda
16:02:37 <agendabot> agenda+ Announcements and Introductions
16:02:37 <agendabot> agenda+ Tooling Resolutions
16:02:37 <agendabot> agenda+ YAML-LD check-in
16:02:37 <agendabot> agenda+ CBOR-LD PRs & Issues
16:02:39 <agendabot> agenda+ Open Discussion
16:02:41 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #json-ld
16:03:00 <TallTed> present+
16:03:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/01-json-ld-minutes.html TallTed
16:04:14 <TallTed> previous meeting:https://www.w3.org/2026/03/25-json-ld-minutes.html
16:04:14 <TallTed> next meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/04/08-json-ld-minutes.html
16:04:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/01-json-ld-minutes.html TallTed
16:05:58 <anatoly-scherbakov> scribe+
16:06:07 <bigbluehat> Zakim, next item
16:06:07 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements and Introductions -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:06:32 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: no announcements
16:06:34 <bigbluehat> Zakim, next item
16:06:34 <Zakim> agendum 1 was just opened, bigbluehat
16:06:39 <bigbluehat> Zakim, close item
16:06:39 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close item', bigbluehat
16:06:48 <bigbluehat> Zakim, next item
16:06:48 <Zakim> agendum 1 was just opened, bigbluehat
16:07:01 <TallTed> Zakim, close item 1
16:07:01 <Zakim> agendum 1, Announcements and Introductions, closed
16:07:02 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:07:02 <Zakim> 2. Tooling Resolutions [from agendabot]
16:07:05 <TallTed> Zakim, next item
16:07:05 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Tooling Resolutions -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:07:24 <ivan> present+
16:07:40 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: we need a resolution on ECHIDNA for publication
16:08:20 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: use Echidna for publishing our publications
16:08:31 <ivan> +1
16:08:32 <anatoly-scherbakov> +1
16:08:34 <bigbluehat> +1
16:08:38 <niklasl> present+
16:08:42 <niklasl> +1
16:08:50 <bigbluehat> RESOLVED: use Echidna for publishing our publications
16:09:00 <bigbluehat> Zakim, next item
16:09:00 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- YAML-LD check-in -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:09:06 <bigbluehat> scribe+
16:09:36 <bigbluehat> anatoly-scherbakov: ivan posted an issue about editorial stuff
16:09:45 <bigbluehat> ... and there's a PR about `@json` value objects
16:10:00 <bigbluehat> ... with a re-review requested by Pierre-Antoine
16:10:05 <anatoly-scherbakov> https://github.com/w3c/yaml-ld/pull/184
16:10:05 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/yaml-ld/pull/184 -> Pull Request 184 [#36]: Add informative JSON literals section with YAML examples after Scalar Value Types (by anatoly-scherbakov) [needs discussion]
16:10:23 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat: we just discussed this one a couple weeks ago
16:10:40 <bigbluehat> anatoly-scherbakov: there is some discussion that might branch off to JSON-LD also
16:11:02 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: can continue discussion on GitHub
16:11:11 <bigbluehat> Zakim, next item
16:11:11 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- CBOR-LD PRs & Issues -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:12:41 <dlehn> present+
16:13:32 <anatoly-scherbakov> https://github.com/w3c/cbor-ld/pull/63
16:13:33 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/cbor-ld/pull/63 -> Pull Request 63 Add discussion of processing model and semantic compression. (by wes-smith)
16:14:19 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: semantic compression on a JSON-LD document is based on all contexts it uses
16:15:22 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: worth spelling out that registry will have a specific entry for a combination of contexts
16:15:36 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: cannot combine registry entries of two contexts
16:16:46 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: semantic compression in a vacuum can work without a registry entry
16:17:27 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: a registry entry for VCDM is used with another, business vocabulary. They have two contexts
16:17:49 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: we will need a separate registry entry for the combination of VCDM + business context
16:18:13 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: registry entries are not per-context
16:18:49 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: registry entry just says 'use semantic compression'
16:18:58 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: no need to create a registry entry per context
16:19:28 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: semantic compression is done dynamically on the set of all used contexts
16:19:46 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: it might be expressed more clearly in the spec
16:20:22 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: that's the main outstanding point from the PR
16:20:39 <ivan> q+
16:20:45 <bigbluehat> ack ivan
16:20:46 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: would like to get this merged by EOW
16:21:21 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: happy with having this PR merged as is, and creating more PRs for further issues
16:21:40 <anatoly-scherbakov> * +100500 about small PRs better than big ones
16:22:17 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: not planning adding to the PR, just having some time for people to review
16:23:09 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: this is much to the editor's discretion
16:23:19 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: will merge on Thu or Fri
16:24:55 <anatoly-scherbakov> https://github.com/w3c/cbor-ld/pull/12
16:24:56 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/cbor-ld/issues/12 -> Issue 12 Plain JSON is considered as compressed CBOR-LD  (by filip26) [propose closing]
16:25:15 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: just raised another issue to the same end, I think we can close this
16:26:07 <anatoly-scherbakov> https://github.com/w3c/cbor-ld/issues/55
16:26:08 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/cbor-ld/issues/55 -> Issue 55 Add links to JSON-LD spec(s). (by BigBlueHat) [good first issue] [editorial]
16:26:18 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: can take this on
16:26:50 <anatoly-scherbakov> https://github.com/w3c/cbor-ld/issues/56
16:26:50 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/cbor-ld/issues/56 -> Issue 56 Update IANA CBOR Tag registration links. (by davidlehn) [good first issue] [editorial]
16:27:13 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: taking this too
16:27:49 <anatoly-scherbakov> https://github.com/w3c/cbor-ld/issues/59
16:27:50 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/cbor-ld/issues/59 -> Issue 59 CBOR-LD Registry as RDF? (by anatoly-scherbakov) [needs discussion]
16:28:07 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: making registry machine readable is probably out of scope
16:28:14 <bigbluehat> q+
16:28:32 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: individual implementations do not necessary need that
16:28:40 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: the effort might not be worth the result
16:28:53 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: we can keep it open for maybe a later version of the spec
16:29:07 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
16:29:48 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: agreed; if there's an interest in exploring this though from someone it would be interesting but not from the spec side
16:29:53 <anatoly-scherbakov> ... which might be limiting
16:30:34 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: not sure if this would be in scope of the spec anyway
16:31:03 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: core CBOR-LD spec does not need to specify it
16:31:06 <wes-smith> wes-smith has joined #json-ld
16:31:10 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: agreed, more of a side project
16:31:34 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: it has conceptual value but a lot of work needed
16:31:50 <ivan> q+
16:31:58 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat: anatoly-scherbakov are you OK if we close this and see if it resurfaces?
16:32:16 <bigbluehat> anatoly-scherbakov: certainly. I'm not very closely familiar with the use cases for CBOR-LD, so not sure how useful this would actually be
16:32:21 <bigbluehat> ... it was more of a curiosity
16:32:27 <bigbluehat> ack ivan
16:32:52 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: how do we set up, manage, develop the registry?
16:33:29 <wes-smith> wes-smith has joined #json-ld
16:33:30 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: this question will arise when we put up a working draft
16:33:33 <wes-smith> q+
16:33:44 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: there is DID method registry
16:34:08 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: that's more complicated and not as essential
16:35:06 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: CBOR-LD Registry is simpler, no review board or IPR
16:35:22 <bigbluehat> ack wes-smith
16:35:29 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: CBOR Tag registry is a great example
16:35:51 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: smaller numbers are most desirable as they're more compact
16:36:12 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: CBOR Tag registration process depends on tag range
16:36:27 <ivan> q+
16:36:33 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: for a smaller tag, you need to come up with a great spec for a mature technology
16:36:44 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: larger tag numbers are first-come-first-serve
16:37:21 <bigbluehat> ack ivan
16:37:53 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: who do I contact to provision a new entry?
16:38:40 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: the first questions are 'where' and 'how'
16:38:55 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: how does CBOR community do it?
16:38:59 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: they use IANA
16:39:17 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: can't get IANA to get to care on this one
16:39:29 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: can we follow w3id registry model?
16:39:39 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: it is a delegation space not a governance space
16:39:56 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: creation of a new identifier is first-come-first-serve
16:40:15 <wes-smith> wes-smith has joined #json-ld
16:40:16 <wes-smith> q+
16:40:30 <dlehn> q+
16:40:38 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: w3id has a very clear goal
16:40:45 <bigbluehat> ack wes-smith
16:40:50 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: do not think we should mix it up with CBOR-LD Registry
16:41:25 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: majority of CBOR-LD registry would be ok to behave on first-come-first-serve basis
16:41:54 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: for one byte IDs (or some other precious range) we can do something similar to an expert review process for CBOR
16:41:58 <ivan> q+
16:42:23 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: we can setup an email address to submit such a proposal
16:42:28 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: for everything else, raise a PR
16:42:32 <bigbluehat> ack dlehn
16:42:45 <anatoly-scherbakov> dlehn: why not using GitHub for this?
16:42:49 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: we are
16:43:11 <anatoly-scherbakov> dlehn: would be fine to open a PR instead of writing an email
16:43:31 <bigbluehat> ack ivan
16:44:00 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: GitHub repo under W3C is possible but we are uncertain if we want to bind it to a GitHub URL
16:44:29 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: we could expose W3C URLs to the registry entries, currently bound to GitHub but that could be changed if need be
16:45:04 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: people working with the registry are developers who consider GitHub a natural tool
16:46:09 <bigbluehat> q+
16:46:19 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: we do not want to etch the github URL into someone's code
16:46:35 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: we might move the registry on W3C and make a redirect to it
16:46:46 <anatoly-scherbakov> s/bigbluehat/ivan/
16:46:54 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
16:47:08 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: how important is URL permanence?
16:47:17 <bigbluehat> q+
16:47:18 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: the URL permanence is not very important
16:47:27 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: entries themselves must be immutable or close to that
16:47:34 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: location can change
16:47:51 <anatoly-scherbakov> ivan: at some point we'll have to specify that in a specification
16:48:00 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
16:48:24 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: W3C URL is less about findability but more about authority
16:48:51 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: even github.com/w3c should not be considered equivalent to w3.org
16:49:27 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: can we change YAML format if meaning stays the same?
16:50:10 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: maybe I will file an issue about this
16:50:30 <anatoly-scherbakov> https://github.com/w3c/cbor-ld/issues/47
16:50:31 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/cbor-ld/issues/47 -> Issue 47 Add discussion of processing modes and their uses. (by wes-smith) [needs discussion]
16:50:52 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: a PR needed here but a small one
16:51:06 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: should say that the processing mode mechanism is an extension point
16:51:14 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: you can define your own processing mode in a registry entry
16:51:37 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: we will be explicit about the default mode and you can make your own in the registry entry
16:52:28 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: there's an existing PR there but it does not explain what to do if user wants a different processing mode
16:53:00 <anatoly-scherbakov> s/processing mode/processing model/
16:53:49 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: commented there
16:54:00 <anatoly-scherbakov> wes-smith: this becomes editorial
16:55:37 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: remaining issues are too much for the remaining time, bye all!
16:56:17 <bigbluehat> Zakim, end meeting
16:56:17 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been bigbluehat, anatoly-scherbakov, pchampin, wes-smith, ivan, ajs6f, niklasl, dlehn, TallTed
16:56:19 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:56:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/01-json-ld-minutes.html Zakim
16:56:26 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, bigbluehat; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:56:28 <Zakim> Zakim has left #json-ld
16:56:41 <bigbluehat> rrsagent, bye
16:56:41 <RRSAgent> I see no action items